Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Defect density of states of tin oxide and copper oxide p-type thin-film transistors

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper measures the complete subgap defect density of states in p-type SnO and Cu2O thin-film transistors and argues that the near-valence-band metal-vacancy peak sets the hole concentration and threshold voltage.

desk verdict First full subgap DoS maps for SnO and Cu2O TFTs, with a clever ambipolar measurement; quantitative defect densities rest on an uncalibrated conversion. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09533 v1 pith:SOVAKI4S submitted 2024-12-12 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph

M{aa}ns J. Mattsson , Kham M. Niang , Jared Parker , David J. Meeth , John F. Wager , Andrew J. Flewitt , Matt W. Graham This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph
keywords p-typeoxidesemiconductorstinSnOcopperCu2Osubgapdefectdensityofstatesphotoconductionspectroscopythin-filmtransistorsmetalvacanciesambipolartransport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the complete subgap defect density of states of p-type tin oxide (SnO) and copper oxide (Cu2O) thin-film transistors can be measured in a single optical experiment by recording the photoconduction response as a tunable laser sweeps from 0.15 to 3.5 eV. The resulting spectra resolve five subgap defect peaks in SnO and three in Cu2O, each assigned to specific point defects by comparison with density-functional-theory formation and transition energies. Near the valence band edge in both materials, a metal-vacancy peak sets the equilibrium hole concentration and therefore the transistor threshold voltage. The same measurement reveals an oxidized CuO minority phase at the copper oxide interface, which the paper argues limits the field-effect mobility of Cu2O TFTs. This matters because reliable p-type oxide transistors are the missing piece for oxide-based complementary electronics.

What carries the argument

The UP-DoS method: a diffraction-limited tunable laser excites the TFT channel from 0.15 to 3.5 eV, and the photon-normalized photoconductance is proportional to an integral over subgap states. Equation 3 rescales that signal into an absolute integrated trap density $N_{\mathrm{tot}}$ using the gate capacitance, the accumulation-channel thickness $d \approx 0.3$ nm, and a saturation photon rate; differentiating $N_{\mathrm{tot}}$ with respect to photon energy gives the DoS, with error-function fitting of each step converting it into a Gaussian peak. Charge balance (Eq. 4) and a discrete trap model (Eq. 5) then turn the measured DoS into Fermi level, Urbach energy, equilibrium hole concentration, and threshold-voltage predictions.

What would settle it

Measure the same TFTs with an independent absolute trap-density technique such as capacitance-voltage profiling or deep-level transient spectroscopy and compare the integrated subgap densities and hole concentrations. Alternatively, vary the hydrogen content (for example, annealing in deuterium) and check whether the 0.02 eV tin-oxide peak assigned to the tin-vacancy–hydrogen acceptor changes in proportion to the hydrogen concentration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single measurement, ultrabroadband photoconduction over 0.15 to 3.5 eV, gives the full band-to-band defect density of states of an operating p-type oxide TFT, not just near-band-edge information. In tin oxide the measured DoS contains five Gaussian subgap peaks at 0.02, 0.06, 0.25, 0.45, and 0.66 eV above the valence band; the paper assigns them to a tin-vacancy–hydrogen acceptor, a tin vacancy, an oxygen vacancy, a hydrogen-on-oxygen donor, and an oxygen interstitial. In copper oxide the DoS has three peaks at 0.20, 0.64, and 1.00 eV, assigned to a copper vacancy, an oxygen-on-copper antisite, and an oxygen interstitial. In both channel materials the metal-vacancy peak near the valence band edge controls the equilibrium hole density, $p \approx [V_{\mathrm{Sn}}+H]$ in SnO and $p \approx [V_{\mathrm{Cu}}]$ in Cu2O, and charge-balance simulations using the measured peaks reproduce the observed threshold voltages. The copper oxide channel is a mixed Cu2O/CuO system, with the oxidized CuO phase at the semiconductor-dielectric interface explaining the low field-effect mobility.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute defect densities rest on Equation 3, which converts measured photoconductance into integrated trap density using an assumed accumulation-layer thickness of about 0.3 nm and a saturation photon rate that is not independently calibrated; if either value is off by a factor of a few, the absolute DoS values, the derived hole concentrations, and the simulated threshold voltages all shift, while the relative peak positions survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured near-valence-band metal-vacancy density sets the Fermi level and threshold voltage, with the hole concentration roughly equal to that defect density in both SnO (tin-vacancy–hydrogen) and Cu2O (copper vacancy).
  • In SnO, unipolar p-type operation requires a large oxygen-interstitial peak near the conduction band edge to suppress electron conduction.
  • In copper oxide TFTs, the CuO minority phase at the interface is the main mobility limiter, so a phase-pure Cu2O channel should yield higher field-effect mobility.
  • Thermal annealing and vacuum-storage oxidation increase the near-band-edge tin-vacancy density and the valence band Urbach energy, shifting threshold voltages and degrading the off state.
  • The full subgap DoS permits quantitative rather than qualitative modeling of transfer curves, since the measured peaks feed directly into charge-balance and threshold-voltage simulations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the tin-vacancy–hydrogen assignment is right, controlling hydrogen content during deposition or annealing should tune p-type doping in SnO, a testable implication the paper leaves implicit.
  • The 1.1 eV subgap threshold in copper oxide, proposed as real-space electron transfer from Cu2O to an oxidized CuO phase, could be checked with time-resolved photoconductance or external-quantum-efficiency measurements that distinguish interfacial transfer from bulk absorption.
  • If Equation 3's absolute scale survives independent calibration, the same ultrabroadband photoconduction approach should map subgap states in other p-type oxide candidates, providing a fast screening route for oxide CMOS materials.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the ultrabroadband photoconduction density-of-states (UP-DoS) method to p-type tin oxide (SnO) and copper oxide (Cu2O) thin-film transistors, reporting subgap defect density-of-states spectra across a 0.15–3.5 eV probe range. It identifies five subgap peaks in SnO, assigned to VS n+H, VSn, VO, HO, and Oi, and three peaks in Cu2O, assigned to VCu, OCu, and Oi. The authors argue that the near-valence-band metal-vacancy peaks control the equilibrium hole concentration (p≈[VSn+H] and p≈[VCu]) and that these densities, when fed into a charge-balance/trap model, reproduce the measured threshold voltages. They also interpret a 1.1 eV photoconduction threshold in copper oxide as a real-space Cu2O-to-CuO transition and attribute the low field-effect mobility to an interfacial CuO minority phase.

Significance. If correct, this would be a valuable full-bandgap defect map for two important p-type oxide channel materials, connecting specific point defects to TFT threshold voltages and to the ambipolar-to-unipolar transition in SnO. The qualitative peak structure, the use of ambipolar operation to probe both sides of the gap, and the comparison with DFT defect levels are strengths. The method is not independently calibrated, however, and the central quantitative claims rest on a conversion factor whose parameters are not measured with uncertainty bounds. The paper would be strengthened by an independent cross-check (e.g., C-V profiling, DLTS, or Hall density) or by a clear error analysis showing that the conclusions are robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.2, Eq. (3)] The conversion from the measured photoconductance Inorm to the absolute integrated trap density Ntot uses an accumulation channel thickness d (taken as ~0.3 nm) and a saturation photon rate ko, neither of which is independently measured or assigned an uncertainty. Since the paper's central quantitative statements—p≈[VS n+H], p≈[VCu], and the simulated threshold voltages in Figs. 4c and 5c—scale directly with Ntot, a factor-of-few error in d or ko would shift all absolute defect densities and hole concentrations. The authors should provide an independent calibration (e.g., C-V profiling, DLTS, or calibrated Hall measurements) or a systematic error propagation demonstrating that the qualitative and quantitative conclusions survive the expected uncertainty in these parameters.
  2. [Sections II.B and II.C, Figs. 4c and 5c] The simulated threshold voltages are not an independent prediction: they are obtained by inserting the measured DoS into the charge-balance and discrete-trap model (Eqs. 4 and 5), so agreement with the measured VT is a self-consistency check driven by the input defect densities, not a validation of the absolute scale or of the model. The text states that the metal-vacancy peak densities 'simulate the observed TFT threshold voltages'; this overstates the degree of confirmation. I recommend either holding out part of the data (e.g., predicting the 9-month device behavior from the 0-month DoS) or explicitly labeling these results as self-consistent model outputs rather than independent predictions.
  3. [Section II.A, Table II] Peak 5 at 0.66 eV is assigned to an oxygen interstitial acceptor Oi, but the cited DFT study by Varley et al. predicts the Oi transition energy above the bandgap, and the stated reason for preferring Oi over the hydrogen-related donor is a charge-balance requirement. This is circular because the same charge-balance model is used to infer p and VT. The assignment is load-bearing since the suppression of n-mode conduction is attributed to a large [Oi] near the CBM. Please provide corroborating evidence (e.g., controlled oxidation experiments, additional DFT predictions, or a different experimental probe) or soften the claim to a tentative assignment.
  4. [Section II.D, Fig. 6] The identification of the 1.1 eV threshold as a real-space Cu2O-to-CuO mixed-phase transition rests on classifying it as an above-bandgap quadratic feature rather than a subgap Gaussian feature. That classification is a modeling choice that is not independently justified; an alternative interpretation as a deep defect band would change the inferred CuO bandgap and the conclusion that the CuO phase limits mobility. Please justify the lineshape choice, discuss alternative explanations, or provide a direct structural or compositional measurement of the interface to support the mixed-phase assignment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The author name 'M ˚ ans J. Mattsson' contains a LaTeX/encoding artifact; please fix it to a properly typeset 'Måns J. Mattsson'.
  2. [Fig. 1c] The labels 'ECuOg = 1.40 eV' and 'ECu2Og = 2.40 eV' are ambiguous because the Tauc plots correspond to different materials; please clarify the color/line correspondence in the caption.
  3. [Fig. 2c] The term 'c.a.' in the energy axis label should be defined (presumably the conduction band minimum); please spell it out for clarity.
  4. [Section II.A] The statement that peak 1 'could be positioned 0.02 eV below EV or above EC' is confusing because the n-mode and p-mode energy axes are shifted; please spell out the energy-axis convention more explicitly.
  5. [Section IV.3] The functional forms for the charge-balance and trap-model equations (Eqs. 4 and 5) are said to be given in the Supporting Information, but the manuscript as provided does not include the SI; please ensure the SI is available or summarize the functional forms in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UP-DoS extraction, external-DFT defect assignment, and fixed trap-model VT simulation are distinct steps; Eq. 3's uncalibrated absolute scale is a calibration risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) measure normalized photoconductance Inorm; (ii) rescale by Eq. 3 to Ntot and differentiate to obtain DoS; (iii) fit Gaussians and assign defects via external DFT (Varley et al.; Zivkovic and de Leeuw); (iv) use the measured DoS in a fixed discrete-trap charge-balance model (Eqs. 4-5) to solve for EF and EU and to simulate VT. No step takes the target conclusion as an input. Eq. 3 is a constant rescaling with parameters d≈0.3 nm and ko; while these are not independently calibrated, the conversion is applied uniformly and is not fitted to the threshold voltages or to the hole concentrations. The VT 'simulation' in Figs. 4c and 5c is a consistency check: the measured DoS enters a fixed model and the output is compared to separately measured transfer curves, not used to tune the model. The defect identifications rest on external DFT transition and formation energies, not on a uniqueness theorem or on this paper's outputs. Self-citations [5, 6] establish the UP-DoS measurement method; this is methodological inheritance, not a circular reduction of the present claim. Therefore no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence bar is present. The main caveat is quantitative: the absolute density scale and hence p≈[VSn+H] and the absolute VT values would shift if d or ko are in error; this is a calibration and accuracy risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The ledger holds the calibration assumption for absolute defect densities, the DFT-based defect assignments, and two interpretive constructs (SnO Oi acceptor and Cu2O-CuO mixed-phase transition). No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective accumulation channel thickness d = ~0.3 nm
    Used in Eq. 3 to convert relative photoconductance into absolute integrated trap density Ntot; no independent measurement of the accumulation layer thickness is provided, so all absolute DoS values and derived hole concentrations inherit its uncertainty.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Photoconduction is proportional to the integrated defect DoS with an energy-independent matrix element (Eqns. 1-2).
    Underlies the entire UP-DoS inversion; if the optical cross-section varies strongly across 0.15 to 3.5 eV, the DoS peaks would be distorted.
  • domain assumption Each step in Ntot is a separate Gaussian DoS peak, so error-function fitting before differentiation is valid.
    Used to generate Gaussian peaks in Figs. 2c and 6; overlapping or non-Gaussian states would change peak energies and widths.
  • domain assumption Charge balance and discrete trap model (Eqns. 4-5) with Gaussian donors/acceptors and exponential Urbach tails describes the TFT electrostatics.
    Used to derive EF, EU, and simulated threshold voltages; model validity is asserted, not proven for these mixed-phase materials.
  • domain assumption DFT transition/formation energies from Varley et al. and Zivkovic/de Leeuw are accurate enough for peak identification, despite the paper's statement that DFT studies disagree.
    Peak assignments in Tables II and III rely on matching these DFT energies; the paper itself notes considerable disagreement between DFT studies.
  • domain assumption Absence of SnO2/CuO in XRD plus PC thresholds implies those phases are minority or interface phases.
    Used to interpret mixed-phase bandgaps and mobility; XRD insensitivity to thin interfacial phases is a known issue.
  • ad hoc to paper The 1.1 eV copper-oxide threshold is a real-space Cu2O-to-CuO electron transfer.
    Introduced to rationalize a threshold that is inconsistent with either bulk phase's bandgap; supported only by an estimate from Khoo et al. and the observed threshold itself.
invented entities (2)
  • Oxygen interstitial acceptor (Oi) at SnO conduction-band edge (peak 5)
    purpose: Explains the 0.66 eV peak and neutral-acceptor charge balance in SnO
    No direct fingerprint; DFT (Varley et al.) predicts Oi transition above the bandgap, so this assignment is proposed because peak 5 must be a neutral acceptor.
  • Cu2O-CuO mixed-phase real-space transition at 1.1 eV
    purpose: Explains the lower-energy photoconduction threshold in copper oxide TFTs
    Claims a transition between Cu2O valence band and CuO conduction band; the only support is the observed threshold itself and a literature estimate, not an independent measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defect density of states of tin oxide and copper oxide p-type thin-film transistors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SOVAKI4S

@misc{pith2026241209533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defect density of states of tin oxide and copper oxide p-type thin-film transistors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SOVAKI4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09533}
}
abstract

The complete subgap defect density of states (DoS) is measured using the ultrabroadband (0.15 to 3.5 eV) photoconduction response from p-type thin-film transistors (TFTs) of tin oxide, SnO, and copper oxide, Cu$_2$O. The TFT photoconduction spectra clearly resolve all bandgaps that further show the presence of interfacial and oxidized minority phases. In tin oxide, the SnO majority phase has a small 0.68 eV bandgap enabling ambipolar or p-mode TFT operation. By contrast, in copper oxide TFTs, an oxidized minority phase with a 1.4 eV bandgap corresponding to CuO greatly reduces the channel hole mobility at the charge accumulation region. Three distinct subgap DoS peaks are resolved for the copper oxide TFT and are best ascribed to copper vacancies, oxygen-on-copper antisites, and oxygen interstitials. For tin oxide TFTs, five subgap DoS peaks are observed and are similarly linked to tin vacancies, oxygen vacancies, and oxygen interstitials. Unipolar p-type TFT is achieved in tin oxide only when the conduction band-edge defect density peak ascribed to oxygen interstitials is large enough to suppress any n-mode conduction. Near the valence band edge in both active channel materials, the metal vacancy peak densities determine the hole concentrations, which further simulate the observed TFT threshold voltages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09533 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a shows the cross section of tin and copper oxide TFTs with their associated photoconduction (PC) microscopy map in the lower panel. The measured trans￾fer curves (W/L = 10, VSD = 1 V) shown in Fig. 1b of tin oxide and copper oxide TFTs both show characteris￾tic p-mode behavior with a negative gate voltage turn-on and ∼105 and ∼104 on-to-off ratios, respectively. Clock￾wise hysteresis due to hole trapping and re-emi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a plots the ambipolar SnO TFT transfer curve, and delineates the p-mode and n-mode conduction re￾gion where the UP-DoS spectra will be taken. The SnO bandgap is identified in Fig. 2b by applying Tauc scal￾ing to the raw Inorm(hν) signal. The extracted bandgap of Eg = 0.68 eV is in good agreement with previously reported 0.70-0.75 eV SnO bandgaps.32,33 Figure 2c (up￾per panel) plots the integrated trap density, Ntot(… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Tin oxide TFT fall times of photoconduction response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a is attributed primarily to a decrease of the defect peak located just below the conduction band minimum, identified as Oi . Note that for n-mode operation, Oi be￾haves as an electron trap.48 To achieve unipolar p-type SnO TFT operation with low off current, similar t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Copper oxide TFT integrated trap density, N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a compares the transfer curves of copper ox￾ide TFTs when the back-channel is passivated (green) or unpassivated (blue). The unpassivated device has a high off current and no clear turn-off voltage. Figure 7b illustrates energy band diagrams showing the existence of a …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The complete band-to-band defect density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    tin vacancy + hydrogen defect (V Sn + H, acceptor),

    work page

  2. [2]

    oxygen vacancy (V O, donor), 4

    tin vacancy (V Sn, acceptor), 3. oxygen vacancy (V O, donor), 4. hydrogen on an oxygen site (H O, donor) and

    work page

  3. [3]

    Charge Balance and Discrete T rap Model By using the full functional form of all measured subgap DoS peaks, it is possible to use a discrete trap model together with charge balance to calculate the equilib- rium Fermi energy and Urbach energies. The equation for charge balance involves a balance between positive and negative charge, N + GD(EF )+ N + T D(E...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Thermally evaporated gold ( t = 100 nm) was used as the source and drain contacts

    p-type TFT preparation Bottom gate, top contact TFTs were fabricated with a thermally-grown SiO2 (thickness, t = 200 nm) as the gate dielectric and heavily-doped p-type Si (100) substrate as the gate electrode. Thermally evaporated gold ( t = 100 nm) was used as the source and drain contacts. The chan- nel layer and the contacts were patterned by photolit...

    work page

  5. [5]

    While the tin and oxygen vacancy peaks are expected, peaks 1 and 5 require more discussion

    oxygen interstitial (O i, acceptor). While the tin and oxygen vacancy peaks are expected, peaks 1 and 5 require more discussion. Figure 2c shows peak 1 is observed in both n- and p- mode UP-DoS measurements at a photon energy 0.02 eV above the bandgap. Thus, in principle, peak 1 could be positioned 0.02 eV below E V or above E C. Since peak 1 is observed ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The diffraction-limited laser illuminates a tin or copper oxide active channel from the top side through the thin passivation layer of alu- minum oxide

    TFT Ultrabroadband Photoconductance DoS Microscopy The Ultrabroadband Photoconduction Density of States (or UP-DoS) microscopy method is applied to tin and copper oxide TFTs to measure the subgap defects density.5,6,52 Figure 1a depicts the UP-DoS setup mea- suring the photoconduction, IP C(hν) on a TFT with an ultrabroadband tunable laser from photon ene...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Nathan, S

    A. Nathan, S. Lee, S. Jeon, J. Robertson, Journal of Display Technology 2014, 10, 11 917

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Wakimura, Y

    G. Wakimura, Y. Yamauchi, Y. Kamakura, Journal of Advanced Simulation in Science and Engineering 2015, 2, 1 201

    work page 2015

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    J. F. Wager, B. Yeh, R. L. Hoffman, D. A. Keszler, Cur- rent Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 2014, 18, 2 53

    2014

  2. [10]

    Hosono, Nature Electronics 2018, 1, 7 428

    H. Hosono, Nature Electronics 2018, 1, 7 428

    2018

  3. [11]

    K. T. Vogt, C. E. Malmberg, J. C. Buchanan, G. W. Mattson, G. M. Brandt, D. B. Fast, P. H.-Y. Cheong, J. F. Wager, M. W. Graham, Physical Review Research 2020, 2, 3 033358

    2020

  4. [12]

    G. W. Mattson, K. T. Vogt, J. F. Wager, M. W. Graham, Advanced Functional Materials 2023, 33, 25 2300742

    2023

  5. [13]

    Z. Wang, P. K. Nayak, J. A. Caraveo-Frescas, H. N. Al- shareef, Advanced Materials 2016, 28, 20 3831

    2016

  6. [14]

    Ouyang, W

    Z. Ouyang, W. Wang, M. Dai, B. Zhang, J. Gong, M. Li, L. Qin, H. Sun, Materials 2022, 15, 14 4781

    2022

  7. [15]

    Devabharathi, S

    N. Devabharathi, S. Yadav, I. D¨ onges, V. Trouillet, J. J. Schneider, Advanced Materials Interfaces 2024, 11, 16 2301082

    2024

  8. [16]

    W. Xu, J. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Zhang, L. Chen, D. Zhu, P. Cao, W. Liu, S. Han, X. Liu, et al., Journal of Alloys and Compounds 2019, 806 40

    2019

  9. [17]

    J. H. Lee, J. Kim, M. Jin, H.-J. Na, H. Lee, C. Im, Y. S. Kim, ACS Applied Electronic Materials 2023, 5, 2 1123

    2023

  10. [18]

    Fortunato, R

    E. Fortunato, R. Barros, P. Barquinha, V. Figueiredo, S.- H. K. Park, C.-S. Hwang, R. Martins, Applied Physics Letters 2010, 97, 5

    2010

  11. [19]

    Y. Ogo, H. Hiramatsu, K. Nomura, H. Yanagi, T. Kamiya, M. Hirano, H. Hosono, Applied Physics Let- ters 2008, 93, 3

    2008

  12. [20]

    L. Lan, J. Peng, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 2011, 58, 5 1452

    2011

  13. [21]

    Nomura, H

    K. Nomura, H. Ohta, A. Takagi, T. Kamiya, M. Hirano, H. Hosono, Nature 2004, 432, 7016 488

    2004

  14. [22]

    Y. Jang, J. Park, J. Kang, S.-Y. Lee, ACS Applied Elec- tronic Materials 2022, 4, 4 1427

    2022

  15. [23]

    Belmonte, H

    A. Belmonte, H. Oh, S. Subhechha, N. Rassoul, H. Hody, H. Dekkers, R. Delhougne, L. Ricotti, K. Banerjee, A. Chasin, et al., In 2021 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM) . IEEE, 2021 10–6

    2021

  16. [24]

    Iordanidou, C

    K. Iordanidou, C. Persson, Materials Science in Semi- conductor Processing 2021, 121 105297

    2021

  17. [25]

    J. F. Wager, AIP Advances 2017, 7, 12

    2017

  18. [26]

    Y. Hu, D. Schlom, S. Datta, K. Cho, ACS Applied Ma- terials & Interfaces 2022, 14, 22 25670

    2022

  19. [27]

    Y. Wang, S. Lany, J. Ghanbaja, Y. Fagot-Revurat, Y. P. Chen, F. Soldera, D. Horwat, F. M¨ ucklich, J. Pierson, Physical Review B 2016, 94, 24 245418

    2016

  20. [28]

    Fortunato, V

    E. Fortunato, V. Figueiredo, P. Barquinha, E. Elamu- rugu, R. Barros, G. Gon¸ calves, S.-H. K. Park, C.-S. Hwang, R. Martins, Applied Physics Letters 2010, 96, 19

    2010

  21. [29]

    Sekkat, V

    A. Sekkat, V. H. Nguyen, C. A. Masse de La Huerta, L. Rapenne, D. Bellet, A. Kaminski-Cachopo, G. Chichignoud, D. Mu˜ noz-Rojas, Communications Materials 2021, 2, 1 78

    2021

  22. [30]

    A. Togo, F. Oba, I. Tanaka, K. Tatsumi, Physical Review B 2006, 74, 19 195128

    2006

  23. [31]

    A. W. Lee, D. Le, K. Matsuzaki, K. Nomura, ACS Ap- plied Electronic Materials 2020, 2, 4 1162

    2020

  24. [32]

    J. P. Allen, D. O. Scanlon, L. F. Piper, G. W. Watson, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2013, 1, 48 8194

    2013

  25. [33]

    Zivkovi´ c, N

    A. Zivkovi´ c, N. H. de Leeuw,Physical Review Materials 2020, 4, 7 074606

    2020

  26. [34]

    D. O. Scanlon, B. J. Morgan, G. W. Watson, A. Walsh, Physical Review Letters 2009, 103, 9 096405

    2009

  27. [35]

    A. W. Lee, Y. Zhang, C.-H. Huang, K. Matsuzaki, K. Nomura, Advanced Electronic Materials 2020, 6, 12 2000742

    2020

  28. [36]

    Jeong, D

    C.-Y. Jeong, D. Lee, Y.-J. Han, Y.-J. Choi, H.-I. Kwon, Semiconductor Science and Technology 2015, 30, 8 085004

    2015

  29. [37]

    H. Luo, L. Liang, H. Cao, M. Dai, Y. Lu, M. Wang, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2015, 7, 31 17023

    2015

  30. [38]

    Y. Wu, Z. Tang, G. J. Cruz, Y. Yang, W. Zhang, W. Ren, P. Zhang, Physical Review B 2022, 106, 8 085201

    2022

  31. [39]

    K. J. Saji, Y. V. Subbaiah, K. Tian, A. Tiwari, Thin Solid Films 2016, 605 193

    2016

  32. [40]

    W. Guo, L. Fu, Y. Zhang, K. Zhang, L. Liang, Z. Liu, H. Cao, X. Pan, Applied Physics Letters 2010, 96, 4

    2010

  33. [41]

    W. Zhou, Y. Liu, Y. Yang, P. Wu, The Journal of Phys- ical Chemistry C 2014, 118, 12 6448

    2014

  34. [42]

    P. Khoo, K. Satou, M. Izaki, In IOP Conference Se- ries: Materials Science and Engineering , volume 920. IOP Publishing, 2020 012028

    2020

  35. [43]

    Ozaslan, O

    D. Ozaslan, O. Erken, M. Gunes, C. Gumus, Physica B: Condensed Matter 2020, 580 411922

    2020

  36. [44]

    Varley, A

    J. Varley, A. Schleife, A. Janotti, C. Van de Walle, Ap- plied Physics Letters 2013, 103, 8

    2013

  37. [45]

    D. E. Gomersall, K. M. Niang, J. D. Parish, Z. Sun, A. L. Johnson, J. L. MacManus-Driscoll, A. J. Flewitt, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2023, 11, 17 5740

    2023

  38. [46]

    S. Han, K. M. Niang, G. Rughoobur, A. J. Flewitt, Ap- plied Physics Letters 2016, 109, 17

    2016

  39. [47]

    J. Jo, J. D. Lenef, K. Mashooq, O. Trejo, N. P. Dasgupta, R. L. Peterson, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 2020, 67, 12 5557

    2020

  40. [48]

    L. Guo, M. Zhao, D.-M. Zhuang, M. Cao, L. Ouyang, X. Li, R. Sun, Z. Gao, Applied Surface Science 2015, 359 36

    2015

  41. [49]

    Singh, J

    V. Singh, J. Sinha, S. Shivashankar, S. Avasthi, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2023, 11, 22 7356

    2023

  42. [50]

    Im, Y.-G

    S. Im, Y.-G. Chang, J. H. Kim, Photo-Excited Charge Collection Spectroscopy: Probing the traps in field-effect transistors, Springer Science & Business Media, 2014

    2014

  43. [51]

    F.-Y. Ran, M. Taniguti, H. Hosono, T. Kamiya, Journal of Display Technology 2015, 11, 9 720

    2015

  44. [52]

    F. Oba, M. Choi, A. Togo, A. Seko, I. Tanaka, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2010, 22, 38 384211

    2010

  45. [53]

    Januar, C.-Y

    M. Januar, C.-Y. Lu, H.-C. Lin, T.-Y. Huang, C.-M. Yang, K.-K. Liu, K.-C. Liu, Materials Advances 2024, 5, 11 4679

    2024

  46. [54]

    J. F. Wager, Amorphous Oxide Semiconductors: IGZO and Related Materials for Display and Memory 2022, 105–123

    2022

  47. [55]

    Leijtens, R

    T. Leijtens, R. Prasanna, A. Gold-Parker, M. F. Toney, M. D. McGehee, ACS Energy Letters 2017, 2, 9 2159

    2017

  48. [56]

    F. Hao, C. C. Stoumpos, D. H. Cao, R. P. Chang, M. G. Kanatzidis, Nature Photonics 2014, 8, 6 489. 11

    2014

  49. [57]

    Napari, T

    M. Napari, T. N. Huq, D. J. Meeth, M. J. Heikkil¨ a, K. M. Niang, H. Wang, T. Iivonen, H. Wang, M. Leskela, M. Ri- tala, et al., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2021, 13, 3 4156

    2021

  50. [58]

    G. W. Mattson, K. T. Vogt, J. F. Wager, M. W. Graham, Journal of Applied Physics 2022, 131, 10 105701

    2022

  51. [59]

    Alajlani, F

    Y. Alajlani, F. Placido, A. Barlow, H. O. Chu, S. Song, S. U. Rahman, R. De Bold, D. Gibson, Vacuum 2017, 144 217

    2017

  52. [60]

    C. K. G. Kwok, Y. Wang, X. Shu, K. M. Yu, Applied Surface Science 2023, 627 157295

    2023

  53. [61]

    D. Hong, G. Yerubandi, H. Chiang, M. Spiegelberg, J. Wager, Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materi- als Sciences 2008, 33, 2 101

    2008

  54. [62]

    Y. Ogo, H. Hiramatsu, K. Nomura, H. Yanagi, T. Kamiya, M. Kimura, M. Hirano, H. Hosono, phys- ica status solidi (a) 2009, 206, 9 2187

    2009

  55. [63]

    Koffyberg, F

    F. Koffyberg, F. Benko, Journal of Applied Physics 1982, 53, 2 1173

    1982

  56. [64]

    Hodby, T

    J. Hodby, T. Jenkins, C. Schwab, H. Tamura, D. Trivich, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 1976, 9, 8 1429. T able of Contents 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.21015 1017 1019 1021 1023 Energy (eV) VCu OiOCu 1017 1019 1021 OiVSn VO EF -40 -20 0 20 10-11 10-10 10-9 10-8 10-7 IS...

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.